Camera Tech: Rabbit Hole?

[Ricochetrider]

Just found THIS ARTICLE FROM DIGITAL CAMERA WORLD talking about complexity and latest/greatest developments in camera function extremes. 
Interesting perspective, and anyone who knows me probably knows my stance on this. FYI tho, there are lots of adverts between segments or paragraphs. So a little on the click-bait-y side of things.

[rconey]

On the plus side, I see lots of comments that "if you aren't getting good images, it's you, not the camera". Slide film in the 1980s, and 1990s with medium format film, then digital since the 2000s gives the perspective that equipment today is outstanding. Image stabilization means I don't often use a tripod anymore (sometimes wish I had...). 

Probably more important now for most of us is knowing the limits of our equipment rather than needing better equipment. For example on my Z7 I know that if I pull up shadows 5 stops I will see some banding in the background, especially if I use full shadow adjustment and noise reduction in ACR. Now, 5 stops of available shadow recovery is nothing to feel bad about. -Regards, RC

[AJG]

3 hours ago, Ricochetrider said:

Just found THIS ARTICLE FROM DIGITAL CAMERA WORLD talking about complexity and latest/greatest developments in camera function extremes. 
Interesting perspective, and anyone who knows me probably knows my stance on this. FYI tho, there are lots of adverts between segments or paragraphs. So a little on the click-bait-y side of things.

The article is right about the obsession with having the latest and greatest.  The irony of the extremely high quality possible with today's equipment is how few images are printed in a large size that would show off that quality.  The vast majority of images made today will never be seen on anything other than a phone screen with all of the issues of color accuracy, sharpness, etc. that will result from that.  The interesting part about reviews that drool over specs is that they usually don't deal with how functional some of this gear actually is in the hands of an average user.  All of the megapixels and lens resolution in the world aren't worth much if the camera is so uncomfortable to hold and use that it doesn't get used.

I have had to explain to some of my students that that "P" on the control dial of their DSLRs doesn't stand for professional  and that with some knowledge they can get much more interesting results with manual control.  I'm not suggesting that all automation is bad all of the time--I'm grateful that I am not coating  glass plates with wet collodion in order to make a photograph. But if the latest cameras always made the best photographs then only rich people could be great photographers. 

[c_watson1]

These articles clog the aspirational online tech echo chambers. Pity the goofs who start losing sleep about not owning just-shipped merch. A difficult lesson amounts to realizing the images produced by "trailing edge" gear are often indistinguishable from those captured by stuff shilled this week by yapping online influencers.

[paddler4]

A very sensible article. I think he could go further. The latest craze, global shutters, isn't just absolutely useless for most of us. It's actually detrimental because of its negative effect on DR. 

Whether any of the new doodads are worthwhile depends on what you do. If you do landscape photography or urban night photography or studio portraits, AI subject detection is useless. If you do candids of kids, which I do, it's actually useful because they don't stay still. I have a much higher keep rate for candids with my R6 II than I had with my 5D IV. However, for most other types of photography I do, that feature is worthless.

His point about the silly resolution race is spot on. Unless you print large or crop severely, it doesn't much matter how much about 20 MP you go. I have printed up to 17 x 22 with cameras that have 22, 24, and 30 MP, and not a single person has ever commented that the photos lack detail. I did exhibit one 11 x 19 that was an 8 MP crop from a 12 MP image, and that one really did take a lot of postprocessing work, but the only comments I've received about the final product have been very positive.

The rule I have tried to enforce on myself--I have to admit, I have enough GAS that I have at times violated it--is that if I can't say what a new piece of gear will allow me to to appreciably better, I shouldn't buy it.

Ricochetrider: you must be using an ad-vulnerable browser without an ad blocker extension. I read the column in Vivaldi with no ad blocker added, but with Disconnect.me installed, and the page was quite clean.

[wogears]

I see this, obviously, every time I am online. For my part, I couldn't care a whit about video; I do not "create content". Yes, I've seen some amazing videos, but have not shot any of them. I do like face/eye detection, even on my Fujis which find faces everywhere--rocks, trees, shirts--but I don't need 80% of the various focus options. I am not interested in having the camera tell me what the subject is. Some tracking can be useful, but I need to pick what gets tracked. I have a Nikon D810, which has 36MP, and it's way more than enough. There are workarounds for a lot of this, and I know that manufacturers have to keep up with the Canons, but I would still love a digital F100. I would also like to see manufacturers create "basic" menus with a sane number of options, and the ability to reset to original version if I add the wrong option.

[Nick D.]

At the same time we are drowning in billions of mediocre images. Its harder and harder to find interesting pictures.

My Windows 10 screen is populated by "free" snaps of beautiful places taken by people who need take some image composition lessons.

[PapaTango]

 

[Nick D.]

Found amazing pictures,  https://georgehurrell.com/gallery/

He wasn't using  IPhone, but he certainly used lots of lights, 🙂.

Could you imagine, taking all those pictures without global shutter? Without looking on computer monitor?

Edited February 15 by Nick D.

[glen_h]

I never heard of global shutter before, but I do know about leaf shutters.

 

When I was 10, I inherited much of my grandfather's photography equipment,
especially darkroom equipment, but not his Beseler Topcon Auto-100.

That is, an SLR with a leaf shutter.

I knew about focal plane shutters from my dad's Canon VI, and leaf shutters
from simpler cameras.  (And also a Yashica TLR that I used some.)

I think he bought the Auto-100 specifically for the leaf shutter.

 

And so now leaf shutters are back again?

 

[Ken Katz]

28 minutes ago, glen_h said:

And so now leaf shutters are back again?

 

Sort of, since a leaf shutter can sync with flash at all shutter speeds and I believe is not subject to rolling shutter distortion.  Of course the Sony has a maximum shutter speed of 1/80,000 second with 120 frames per second bursts.  That is of course you need this kind of performance, but since I missed my chance to photograph Taylor at the Super Bowl last Sunday, I think I can wait on buying the new Sony, at least until next year.  

[glen_h]

1 hour ago, Ken Katz said:

 

Sort of, since a leaf shutter can sync with flash at all shutter speeds and I believe is not subject to rolling shutter distortion. 

(snip)

I suppose.

But you lose a lot of light at those speeds.

Another that I inherited from my grandfather is the Agfalux-C, a very small flashgun for flashcubes.

I used to use that with the Canon VI at 1/30, and it worked just fine.

Data sheets always said that you need special flash bulbs for focal plane shutters.

[Ken Katz]

"But you lose a lot of light at those speeds"

Absolutely, but the camera can shoot at around 51,000 ISO, so it may work.  Frankley, I have no need for such capabilities, but thought your comparison to the performance of leaf shutters was interesting.  I have shot my granddaughter (and some bears at the Bronx zoo roughhousing) at 10 fps using an E shutter on my tiny Olympus EM-5iii, but I think I will pass on the new Sony global shutter (and the $15K investment including a few lenses) for now.

[hjoseph7]

The good thing about all of this, is that while everybody is chasing the latest doo-dads, the previous top-of the line camera prices go down and you can get them used on eBay, or at any retailer that sells used goods.  You can partially blame the "Professional Reviewer"  industry, yes I call it an industry because these guys get paid to review products.

They usually have a list of features in mind like "4K"  and if the camera being reviewed doesn't have it, it is labeled a dud, or obsolete. Another reason is stiff competition between camera brands. They all try to out do each other with features that the other guy doesn't have.  This has always been the case even with film cameras.

On the other hand, if it wasn't for competition between camera brands, cameras would remain the same and we would still be using camera's with 6MP.  As far as the greatest and latest feature, you got to ask yourself "Is this going to improve my photography in any way ?".  If your photography is just a Hobby then you are probably going to enjoy those new features by yourself. If you get paid for your photography the client is probably not going to notice unless if you point it out.

Notice that camera brands like Leica usually stay out of this viscious competitive cycle other brands go through. They try to keep up with the latest technology, but their cameras are much simpler than Nikon or Sony. They mainly concentrate on the Image quality which is the most important thing.    

Edited February 17 by hjoseph7

[httpwww.photo.netbarry]

On 2/16/2024 at 2:18 PM, glen_h said:

 

 

And so now leaf shutters are back again?

 

Acts like one with regards to flash sync but it isn't actually a mechanism at all. It's not really a shutter.  It electronically turns the sensor on/off no need to shut light out with shutter.

Edited February 18 by httpwww.photo.netbarry